clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 867   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

9 & 10 W. 3, CAP. 17, BILLS OF EXCHANGE. 867
first five sections of this Article are codified from the Act of 1785, ch. 38,
and the 6th and 7th sections from the Act of 1837, ch. 258.
It was early ruled by Lord Holt in Brough v. Parkings, 2 Ld. Raym.
992, that the. Statute did not destroy or take away the party's action,
where there is no protest, nor is the want of a protest any bar of the
action, but the Act seems only to take away from the plaintiff his interest
or damages, where he has not made a protest, or to give the drawer a
remedy against him by way of action for the costs and damages. Damages
rest upon the Statute, but interest will be allowed independent of the
Statute; and so it has been held, that the indorsee of an inland bill may
recover interest from the drawer, without protesting it for non-payment,
Windle v. Andrews, 2 B. & A. 696. Before the 9th and 10th W. 3, c. 17,
said Bayley J. there, "no protest was ever made on an inland bill of
exchange. By that Statute the parties were only entitled to make one
in the case of an accepted bill; and the 3rd and 4th Anne (q. v.) extended
that power to the case of a refusal to accept, and then enacted that no
acceptance should be sufficient to charge any person, unless in writing, and
that the party should not be liable, if the bill be accepted* and not 636
paid, to pay any costs, damages, or interest thereupon, unless a protest be
made. Now that Act gave the holder of the bill a remedy he did not pos-
sess before; and by the eighth section it was provided that nothing therein
contained should extend to discharge any existing remedy against the
drawer, acceptor, or indorser of the bill. Subsequently to this Act, Harris
v. Benson (2 Str. 910) was decided upon the question of allowance of
interest; and Rea v. Meggott, in 7 Geo. 2, upon the parol acceptance;
both of which cases were founded upon the literal construction now sought
to be given to the 5th section. The latter of these cases was expressly over-
ruled by Lord Hardwicke in Lumley v. Palmer (2 Str. 1000), and from
that time to the present the other question has never been raised; but the
practice which previously prevailed of not allowing interest in such cases
has been changed. I think, therefore, that by the latter cases the decision
in Harris v. Benson was virtually overruled. The principle is this: the
8th section provides that the Act shall not take away any remedy which
the party had before. Now before that Act, by the common law, the
defendant was liable for interest. Although, therefore, unless, in compli-
ance with the 3rd and 4th Anne, the bill was protested, he is not entitled
to any remedy under that Statute, still the 8th section preserved to him
his remedy at the common law, although no protest be made." It follows
that the Statutes are not obligatory, and the authority of protesting inland
bills, either for non-payment under the Statute of William, or for non-
acceptance under the Statute of Anne, is attended with very few advan-
tages. It is held that this Statute does not extend to bills payable after
sight, Leftley v. Mills, 4 T. R. 170, (though this, of course, is not so
under our Statute); and there an acceptor of such a bill, who refused
payment on the third day of grace, was held not liable to any charge for
the noting of the bill. "At sight" means after acceptance or protest for
non-acceptance, for the sight must appear in a legal way, and therefore
a private exhibition of the bill to the drawee is not enough, per Lord
Kenyon in Campbell v. French, 6 T. R. 212, citing Marius, 19. Notice of
the protest is directed to be sent to the drawer within fourteen days.
(56)

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 867   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives